There was some talk about how what we were doing shouldn’t be “a game”. But I wonder why it shouldn’t be. It seems to me that we are gaming the system in a very real sense. It is obvious that something is happening and that what we are doing is to lay the foundations of an afterculture, somehow. T.’s insistence that permaculture is not about agriculture but about building societies, is very significant. The catch is the utopian character of any reform that strives for perfection. I prefer my future messy, and messy it will be. The trouble is that we don’t know any other society than this one, even though we try to go “retrolithic” and learn lessons from our past. The irony of where we were, the last couple of days was that it looked sustainable on the surface, but wasn’t when you take into account the huge environmental cost of living that way. The fact that shopping mean a roundtrip of 80 km is highly ironic. Yet cities can only maintain themselves if they cause tremendous damage, not only locally, or nationally, but globally. Sweden is a bit further along, and that was noticeable in the ethanol and biofuel stench that emanated from the lorries that stock the supermarkets in the larger towns, while no shops are left in the villages. The deprivation of resources at the local level is a common occurrence all over Europe. But, as T. said: “what will you do when you get hungry? drink the ethanol?”
And so we struggle onward, trying to create connections, where connections have been severed. “The strength and the courage to face our worst fears, even if they become a reality.” I’d say that for most of this planet’s inhabitants those fears are already being realized. It can’t be helped. The vow to liberate all sentient beings is not an idle boast, it is an intention.
This thing has 4 Comments
“All organisations have formal systems and informal systems. You know the formal bits because formal usually means explicit - the org structure diagram, job descriptions, line (or matrix) management structures, written policies, mission statements, value statements and vision statements and the group and individual objectives (supposedly) derived from them and the behaviours that go with them - making a request, filling in a form, going to see the right person in
facilities management, appraising staff performance, project and programme reporting. They also have formal links with customers, suppliers and other organisations - official channels. This is the bureacracy.
The informal or shadow systems are the links between people that may have nothing to do with their official roles or structures. This shadow organisation arises because the formal systems cannot be efficient or effective outside of certain limits. Ralph Stacey in Strategic Management & Organisational Dynamics (dreadful title - great summary and important critique of the development of modern strategic management) points out that there are two main reasons for bureacratic control failing to produce what it’s supposed to: the adverse human reaction to bureacracy (Yup! as I typed that previous paragraph I shuddered at ever having to be part of one again) leading to alienation, passive dependence, work without significance, deskilling and provocation of undesired or unintended behaviour. In addition, formal systems can’t deal well with ambiguity or uncertainty. So these informal groups, unofficial ways of behaving, doing business through social activities and networking grow up to allow the organisation to operate more effectively and efficiently. Remember too that unlike the formal part of the organisation, the boundaries of the shadow systems are permeable and always changing, making new contacts in “the industry” or “the sector” as and when opportunities arise.
Furthermore, it has been pointed out that the shadow organisation is the place where innovation and creativity are allowed to flourish. You can’t make new stuff effectively within a formal process. Creativity requires messiness, mistakes and flexibility around time. Innovations happen in the informal world - and, from time to time, when they are useful to the formal world, they become systematised and turned into policy or else they remain “the way we do things around here”. Note also that the organisation as a whole is the same bunch of people - just that they move over time between formal and informal modes and activities, however, my experience has been that there are people who feel more at home in the informal systems (cool dudes like me - heh!) and others who spend most of their time formally (tight-arsed pen-pushers - natch!).”
http://perfectpath.wordpress.com/2006/12/05/its-social-stupid/
http://partnerships.typepad.com/civic/2006/12/social_media_su.html
by all means, do also see:
http://www.ipcon.org/
http://www.gaiauniversity.org/english/
http://www.joannamacy.net/ **
“All organisations have formal systems and informal systems. You know the formal bits because formal usually means explicit - the org structure diagram, job descriptions, line (or matrix) management structures, written policies, mission statements, value statements and vision statements and the group and individual objectives (supposedly) derived from them and the behaviours that go with them - making a request, filling in a form, going to see the right person in facilities management, appraising staff performance, project and programme reporting. They also have formal links with customers, suppliers and other organisations - official channels. This is the bureaucracy.
The informal or shadow systems are the links between people that may have nothing to do with their official roles or structures. This shadow organisation arises because the formal systems cannot be efficient or effective outside of certain limits. Ralph Stacey in Strategic Management & Organisational Dynamics (dreadful title - great summary and important critique of the development of modern strategic management) points out that there are two main reasons for bureaucratic control failing to produce what it’s supposed to: the adverse human reaction to bureaucracy (Yup! as I typed that previous paragraph I shuddered at ever having to be part of one again) leading to alienation, passive dependence, work without significance, deskilling and provocation of undesired or unintended behaviour. In addition, formal systems can’t deal well with ambiguity or uncertainty. So these informal groups, unofficial ways of behaving, doing business through social activities and networking grow up to allow the organisation to operate more effectively and efficiently. Remember too that unlike the formal part of the organisation, the boundaries of the shadow systems are permeable and always changing, making new contacts in “the industry” or “the sector” as and when opportunities arise.
Furthermore, it has been pointed out that the shadow organisation is the place where innovation and creativity are allowed to flourish. You can’t make new stuff effectively within a formal process. Creativity requires messiness, mistakes and flexibility around time. Innovations happen in the informal world - and, from time to time, when they are useful to the formal world, they become systematised and turned into policy or else they remain “the way we do things around here”. Note also that the organisation as a whole is the same bunch of people - just that they move over time between formal and informal modes and activities, however, my experience has been that there are people who feel more at home in the informal systems (cool dudes like me - heh!) and others who spend most of their time formally (tight-arsed pen-pushers - natch!) .”
http://partnerships.typepad.com/civic/2006/12/social_media_su.html
by all means, do see also:
http://www.joannamacy.net/ **
http://www.gaiauniversity.org/english/
http://www.ipcon.org/
http://partnerships.typepad.com/civic/2006/12/social_media_su.html
see also:
http://www.joannamacy.net/ **
http://www.ipcon.org/
http://www.gaiauniversity.org/english/
http://ecobuddhism.blogspot.com/
http://www.futurescenarios.org/
+++
++
+